Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Jim Carlile Date: Aug 8, 2009 1:16am
Forum: texts Subject: More Google Scan(m)s

Here's another new Google stunt I've been noticing.

Not all of their participating library agreements require free full-view display of public domain books. Basically it's just UC and a few others that do so.

So here the deal-- I've been finding recently that more and more pre-1923 scans are being witheld if there are later "Corpus" post 1923 editions still in copyright.

This has been the case for awhile, but the new wrinkle now is that these held-back scans are not from the full-view required libraries. So they don't HAVE to make them available-- so in the future they can make the researcher buy the re-release instead.

Prediction? Just watch Google start to pull their original UC free-view PD scans and replace them with the ones they can lock up from other sources.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Time Traveller Date: Aug 8, 2009 3:28am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: More Google Scan(m)s

can not the UC insist Google use its books first, or pull out of the deal?

Google is fast becoming the "Microsoft" of on-line-services

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Time Traveller Date: Aug 8, 2009 3:21am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: More Google Scan(m)s

Why is 1923 important?

So if a second revised (?) edition of a book is published, the first edition can still go copyleft while the second edition is in copyright.

so, how much revision is needed to make a revised second edition? What does the law say on that, before it gets a new book copyright?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jim Carlile Date: Aug 8, 2009 7:34pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: More Google Scan(m)s

The pre-1923 work is in the public domain, but what Google is slowly doing again is pulling them out of full-view if there is a later post-1923 reissue.

They were doing this a few years ago, then they got a lot better, but now I've seen more and more PD works held back.

UC can't make Google show anything. UC themselves can put them online, but they aren't. UM is now-- but a little wrinkle-- their PD full-view scans are only available to students and faculty on their server-- and no public downloads.

The new Google/UM agreement seems pretty suspicious, too. Like a possible money maker for UM.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Time Traveller Date: Aug 8, 2009 10:47pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: More Google Scan(m)s

would next year 1923 become 1924?

the question of all questions, how much would I have to pay Google for a download?

I suppose I should refund a share of the costs involved when they provide me with a download, but a payout to the shareholder? Sickening? PS, does Google claim tax exemptions for distributing PD books?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: garthus Date: Aug 8, 2009 2:42pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: More Google Scan(m)s

Nothing surprises me concerning Goggles antics. There is so much public domain materials out there we should concentrate on digitizing them while paying a wary eye to Goggles antics. If one counts all specifications, service, users, and other type of equipment manuals; product brochures and packaging; specialty publications; such a large treasure trove of disappearing materials exists; (probably more than 95% of the materials published before March of 1989) which is incontrovertibly in the public domain. Lionel train manuals for example were never copyrighted, I have placed some from my collection in the archive; but materials such as this have been neglected and are a very important part of Cultural and technological history. I would worry about putting up what is out there first and once the archiove achieves a critical mass of items posted; goole and the other proprietary parasites will be less and less able to exert such monopolistic control.

I work in a library consortium and the other day noticed that libraries have paid access to EBSCO databases which charge the taxpayers to give them PDF copies of works such as Machiavelli's 'The Prince". Not only does this exhibit the level of incompetence and laziness on the part of some so-called professional library administrators; but it also exposes the very weak underside of the entire corporate_public/education_library bureaucratic monster which has been created in the West. I am sure that as economic times in the West get even worse, the entire rotten and corrupt house of academia which has been built in the last 50-100 years will face serious consequences when people realize that the Internet Archive will probably have the most comprehensive collection of documents available (text, video, and audio), and available to anyone at any time, without the necessity for mediation through (so-called) professional librarians and academics. Nothing Google or our publishing parasites do can change this now.


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jim Carlile Date: Aug 8, 2009 7:39pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: More Google Scan(m)s

Hey, then they'll just try to buy the Archive!

This is indeed a nutty age-- don't even get me started on most librarians-- I'm convinced so many of them just hate books-- at least the managers.

A real age of barbarism. I get a kick out of archivists on other lists who worry to death about preserving films and videos, etc., but turn around and defend the mass "weeding" of books by their bosses. It's crazy.

BTW, the Google Agreement requires disclosure of ALL PD works no matter the date. No doubt Google has already researched the status of many of their 1922-1964 works, but is holding back the info.

And the UC agreement requires full-view of all PD works, but who says Google needs to post THEIR scans and not someone else's where this condition doesn't exist?

My prediction is that there is no way in hell that Google will giving out free downloads of PD works when the corpus gets enlarged with all of the free pre-1964 stuff.

And orphan works? Forget about it-- they are now back in print, Google style, so there is an incentive to keep them in copyright and none to release them.

So in other words, I spot a trend here...